Yes and no. There, argument over. There can be yeses and there can nos.

This argument is not over.

It is over.

Your still arguing, I am still arguing, so clearly the argument is NOT over.

Clever, but, in the context of Monty Python, it is over.

No it isn't.

yes it is.

(We're still presenting different sides on whether the argument is over or not. That itself is the essence of an argument, a confrontation between two people with disagreeing views. So, technically, it isn't over.

But again, because of our fascination for Monty Python, and his wit:

No it isn't)

"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau

Yes and no. There, argument over. There can be yeses and there can nos.

This argument is not over.

It is over.

Your still arguing, I am still arguing, so clearly the argument is NOT over.

Clever, but, in the context of Monty Python, it is over.

No it isn't.

yes it is.

(We're still presenting different sides on whether the argument is over or not. That itself is the essence of an argument, a confrontation between two people with disagreeing views. So, technically, it isn't over.

But again, because of our fascination for Monty Python, and his wit:

No it isn't)

See I told you the argument isn't over.

"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12

Yes and no. There, argument over. There can be yeses and there can nos.

This argument is not over.

It is over.

Your still arguing, I am still arguing, so clearly the argument is NOT over.

Clever, but, in the context of Monty Python, it is over.

No it isn't.

yes it is.

(We're still presenting different sides on whether the argument is over or not. That itself is the essence of an argument, a confrontation between two people with disagreeing views. So, technically, it isn't over.

But again, because of our fascination for Monty Python, and his wit:

No it isn't)

See I told you the argument isn't over.

I wrote "in the context of Monty Python" that I'd continue this conversation. I understood your logic but seeing that this discussion was just a lively one, I just went on.

Thanks for "pointing that out".

"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau

Yes and no. There, argument over. There can be yeses and there can nos.

This argument is not over.

It is over.

Your still arguing, I am still arguing, so clearly the argument is NOT over.

Clever, but, in the context of Monty Python, it is over.

No it isn't.

yes it is.

(We're still presenting different sides on whether the argument is over or not. That itself is the essence of an argument, a confrontation between two people with disagreeing views. So, technically, it isn't over.

But again, because of our fascination for Monty Python, and his wit:

No it isn't)

See I told you the argument isn't over.

I wrote "in the context of Monty Python" that I'd continue this conversation. I understood your logic but seeing that this discussion was just a lively one, I just went on.

Thanks for "pointing that out".

We are not just arguing in the context of monty python, we are in the more broad sense arguing.

"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12

Yes and no. There, argument over. There can be yeses and there can nos.

This argument is not over.

It is over.

Your still arguing, I am still arguing, so clearly the argument is NOT over.

Clever, but, in the context of Monty Python, it is over.

No it isn't.

yes it is.

(We're still presenting different sides on whether the argument is over or not. That itself is the essence of an argument, a confrontation between two people with disagreeing views. So, technically, it isn't over.

But again, because of our fascination for Monty Python, and his wit:

No it isn't)

See I told you the argument isn't over.

I wrote "in the context of Monty Python" that I'd continue this conversation. I understood your logic but seeing that this discussion was just a lively one, I just went on.

Thanks for "pointing that out".

We are not just arguing in the context of monty python, we are in the more broad sense arguing.

About what then?

"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau

Yes and no. There, argument over. There can be yeses and there can nos.

This argument is not over.

It is over.

Your still arguing, I am still arguing, so clearly the argument is NOT over.

Clever, but, in the context of Monty Python, it is over.

No it isn't.

yes it is.

(We're still presenting different sides on whether the argument is over or not. That itself is the essence of an argument, a confrontation between two people with disagreeing views. So, technically, it isn't over.

But again, because of our fascination for Monty Python, and his wit:

No it isn't)

See I told you the argument isn't over.

I wrote "in the context of Monty Python" that I'd continue this conversation. I understood your logic but seeing that this discussion was just a lively one, I just went on.

Thanks for "pointing that out".

We are not just arguing in the context of monty python, we are in the more broad sense arguing.

About what then?

Whether we are arguing or not.

"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12

Yes and no. There, argument over. There can be yeses and there can nos.

This argument is not over.

It is over.

Your still arguing, I am still arguing, so clearly the argument is NOT over.

Clever, but, in the context of Monty Python, it is over.

No it isn't.

yes it is.

(We're still presenting different sides on whether the argument is over or not. That itself is the essence of an argument, a confrontation between two people with disagreeing views. So, technically, it isn't over.

But again, because of our fascination for Monty Python, and his wit:

No it isn't)

See I told you the argument isn't over.

I wrote "in the context of Monty Python" that I'd continue this conversation. I understood your logic but seeing that this discussion was just a lively one, I just went on.

Thanks for "pointing that out".

We are not just arguing in the context of monty python, we are in the more broad sense arguing.

About what then?

Whether we are arguing or not.

In that case, yes we are.

"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau

Yes and no. There, argument over. There can be yeses and there can nos.

This argument is not over.

It is over.

Your still arguing, I am still arguing, so clearly the argument is NOT over.

Clever, but, in the context of Monty Python, it is over.

No it isn't.

yes it is.

(We're still presenting different sides on whether the argument is over or not. That itself is the essence of an argument, a confrontation between two people with disagreeing views. So, technically, it isn't over.

But again, because of our fascination for Monty Python, and his wit:

No it isn't)

See I told you the argument isn't over.

I wrote "in the context of Monty Python" that I'd continue this conversation. I understood your logic but seeing that this discussion was just a lively one, I just went on.

Thanks for "pointing that out".

We are not just arguing in the context of monty python, we are in the more broad sense arguing.

About what then?

Whether we are arguing or not.

In that case, yes we are.

So you admit you were wrong ?

"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12

Yes and no. There, argument over. There can be yeses and there can nos.

This argument is not over.

It is over.

Your still arguing, I am still arguing, so clearly the argument is NOT over.

Clever, but, in the context of Monty Python, it is over.

No it isn't.

yes it is.

(We're still presenting different sides on whether the argument is over or not. That itself is the essence of an argument, a confrontation between two people with disagreeing views. So, technically, it isn't over.

But again, because of our fascination for Monty Python, and his wit:

No it isn't)

See I told you the argument isn't over.

I wrote "in the context of Monty Python" that I'd continue this conversation. I understood your logic but seeing that this discussion was just a lively one, I just went on.

Thanks for "pointing that out".

We are not just arguing in the context of monty python, we are in the more broad sense arguing.

About what then?

Whether we are arguing or not.

In that case, yes we are.

So you admit you were wrong ?

No we're not.

"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau

Yes and no. There, argument over. There can be yeses and there can nos.

This argument is not over.

It is over.

Your still arguing, I am still arguing, so clearly the argument is NOT over.

Clever, but, in the context of Monty Python, it is over.

No it isn't.

yes it is.

(We're still presenting different sides on whether the argument is over or not. That itself is the essence of an argument, a confrontation between two people with disagreeing views. So, technically, it isn't over.

But again, because of our fascination for Monty Python, and his wit:

No it isn't)

See I told you the argument isn't over.

I wrote "in the context of Monty Python" that I'd continue this conversation. I understood your logic but seeing that this discussion was just a lively one, I just went on.

Thanks for "pointing that out".

We are not just arguing in the context of monty python, we are in the more broad sense arguing.

About what then?

Whether we are arguing or not.

In that case, yes we are.

So you admit you were wrong ?

No we're not.

Yes we are.

"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12

Yes and no. There, argument over. There can be yeses and there can nos.

This argument is not over.

It is over.

Your still arguing, I am still arguing, so clearly the argument is NOT over.

Clever, but, in the context of Monty Python, it is over.

No it isn't.

yes it is.

(We're still presenting different sides on whether the argument is over or not. That itself is the essence of an argument, a confrontation between two people with disagreeing views. So, technically, it isn't over.

But again, because of our fascination for Monty Python, and his wit:

No it isn't)

See I told you the argument isn't over.

I wrote "in the context of Monty Python" that I'd continue this conversation. I understood your logic but seeing that this discussion was just a lively one, I just went on.

Thanks for "pointing that out".

We are not just arguing in the context of monty python, we are in the more broad sense arguing.

About what then?

Whether we are arguing or not.

In that case, yes we are.

So you admit you were wrong ?

No we're not.

Yes we are.

No we're not. (Remember, I know that the argument is over. But I'll just be the opposite party for now...otherwise, there will be no argument.)

"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau

Yes and no. There, argument over. There can be yeses and there can nos.

This argument is not over.

It is over.

Your still arguing, I am still arguing, so clearly the argument is NOT over.

Clever, but, in the context of Monty Python, it is over.

No it isn't.

yes it is.

(We're still presenting different sides on whether the argument is over or not. That itself is the essence of an argument, a confrontation between two people with disagreeing views. So, technically, it isn't over.

But again, because of our fascination for Monty Python, and his wit:

No it isn't)

See I told you the argument isn't over.

I wrote "in the context of Monty Python" that I'd continue this conversation. I understood your logic but seeing that this discussion was just a lively one, I just went on.

Thanks for "pointing that out".

We are not just arguing in the context of monty python, we are in the more broad sense arguing.

About what then?

Whether we are arguing or not.

In that case, yes we are.

So you admit you were wrong ?

No we're not.

Yes we are.

No we're not. (Remember, I know that the argument is over. But I'll just be the opposite party for now...otherwise, there will be no argument.)

No the argument is not over, and your not just pretending.

"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12

Yes and no. There, argument over. There can be yeses and there can nos.

This argument is not over.

It is over.

Your still arguing, I am still arguing, so clearly the argument is NOT over.

Clever, but, in the context of Monty Python, it is over.

No it isn't.

yes it is.

(We're still presenting different sides on whether the argument is over or not. That itself is the essence of an argument, a confrontation between two people with disagreeing views. So, technically, it isn't over.

But again, because of our fascination for Monty Python, and his wit:

No it isn't)

See I told you the argument isn't over.

I wrote "in the context of Monty Python" that I'd continue this conversation. I understood your logic but seeing that this discussion was just a lively one, I just went on.

Thanks for "pointing that out".

We are not just arguing in the context of monty python, we are in the more broad sense arguing.

About what then?

Whether we are arguing or not.

In that case, yes we are.

So you admit you were wrong ?

No we're not.

Yes we are.

No we're not. (Remember, I know that the argument is not over. But I'll just be the opposite party for now...otherwise, there will be no argument.)

No the argument is not over, and your not just pretending.

Yes I am pretending....

"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau

Yes and no. There, argument over. There can be yeses and there can nos.

This argument is not over.

It is over.

Your still arguing, I am still arguing, so clearly the argument is NOT over.

Clever, but, in the context of Monty Python, it is over.

No it isn't.

yes it is.

(We're still presenting different sides on whether the argument is over or not. That itself is the essence of an argument, a confrontation between two people with disagreeing views. So, technically, it isn't over.

But again, because of our fascination for Monty Python, and his wit:

No it isn't)

See I told you the argument isn't over.

I wrote "in the context of Monty Python" that I'd continue this conversation. I understood your logic but seeing that this discussion was just a lively one, I just went on.

Thanks for "pointing that out".

We are not just arguing in the context of monty python, we are in the more broad sense arguing.

About what then?

Whether we are arguing or not.

In that case, yes we are.

So you admit you were wrong ?

No we're not.

Yes we are.

No we're not. (Remember, I know that the argument is not over. But I'll just be the opposite party for now...otherwise, there will be no argument.)

No the argument is not over, and your not just pretending.

Yes I am pretending....

No your not.

"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12

Yes and no. There, argument over. There can be yeses and there can nos.

This argument is not over.

It is over.

Your still arguing, I am still arguing, so clearly the argument is NOT over.

Clever, but, in the context of Monty Python, it is over.

No it isn't.

yes it is.

(We're still presenting different sides on whether the argument is over or not. That itself is the essence of an argument, a confrontation between two people with disagreeing views. So, technically, it isn't over.

But again, because of our fascination for Monty Python, and his wit:

No it isn't)

See I told you the argument isn't over.

I wrote "in the context of Monty Python" that I'd continue this conversation. I understood your logic but seeing that this discussion was just a lively one, I just went on.

Thanks for "pointing that out".

We are not just arguing in the context of monty python, we are in the more broad sense arguing.

About what then?

Whether we are arguing or not.

In that case, yes we are.

So you admit you were wrong ?

No we're not.

Yes we are.

No we're not. (Remember, I know that the argument is not over. But I'll just be the opposite party for now...otherwise, there will be no argument.)

No the argument is not over, and your not just pretending.

Yes I am pretending....

No your not.

Yes I am [pretending[.

"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau